Rehabilitation, Reconstruction, and Recovery Phase

5.1 Recovery Targets and Actual Progress

The government planned the reconstruction and rehabilitation phase to be spread over three to five years (GOSL, 2005c). Nevertheless, there were pronouncements at the political level that all permanent housing needs would be met within a year. Over time, it has become clear that these were optimistic pledges. In fact, housing needs, for example, had not been met fully even by the end of 2006, while reconstruction of damaged schools and hospitals, and rehabilitation of roads, bridges, etc. is likely to take longer than envisaged.

5.1.1 Infrastructure

A total of 182 schools and 222 health institutions were affected by the tsunami. Targets in the education and health sectors included the reconstruction and renovation of 183 schools, four universities, seven Vocational Training Authorities, 444 internally displaced person (IDP) schools (schools used as refugee camps), and the reconstruction and renovation of 102 health institutions.

The pace of recovery, particularly of larger scale infrastructure projects, has been slow with an estimated 50 per cent of construction projects yet to commence by end 2006 (GOSL, 2006). By end 2006, 57 per cent of damaged schools were estimated to be in various stages of construction with only 10 per cent of projects completed and handed over (GOSL, 2006). Similarly, in the health sector only 55 of a total of 102 damaged buildings have been completed (Table 4 [ PDF 62.2KB | 1 page ]).

The bulk of infrastructure damage was to roads and railways (Table 5 [ PDF 62.2KB | 1 page ]). A total length of approximately 800 kilometres of national road network and 1,500 kilometres of provincial and local government roads were damaged. The railway infrastructure on a 160- kilometre-long stretch along the tsunami-affected coastline was also severely damaged. The target date for completion of road and bridge reconstruction was set at 2009. As we shall discuss below, this target date may prove difficult to meet because of serious capacity constraints and cost escalations. The government itself has recognised that the construction industry does not have the necessary contractors, equipment, or skilled workforce for such a major reconstruction effort (GOSL, 2005a).

In addition to the rehabilitation of damaged infrastructure, new demands for infrastructure services were created by relocated communities. As described in detail later, a significant proportion of relocated households was found to have inadequate access to water, roads, pre-schools, and health clinics, and was worse-off than before.

5.1.2 Housing

The immediate requirement in housing was to provide “transitional” shelters where a total of 57,057 transitional shelter units were estimated to be needed to accommodate 50 per cent of the 500,000 internally displaced (GOSL, 2005a). The remainder of the displaced were assumed to have received shelter from friends, relatives, etc. Progress on providing transitional shelters, by and large, was fairly good; by end-2005 over 56,000 units had been completed.⁷

Table 6: Post-tsunami Numbers of Displaced Persons in Transitional Shelters [ PDF 62.8KB | 1 page ]

The total number of displaced persons as of January 2005 was estimated at 98,525, of whom 56,000 were in government camps (transitional shelter) while the rest were with families/friends (RADA, 2006). By end December 2005 the numbers of displaced had dropped to 85,525, of whom 53,000 were in transitional shelters. This figure was estimated at around 40,000 by end 2006.

There have been significant revisions regarding housing policy. An initial declaration by the government of a buffer zone between land and sea of 100 metres on the south and southwest coast and 200 metres on the north and east coast of the country led to the initiation of two types of housing programmes: (i) donor-built housing reconstruction and (ii) home owner-driven housing reconstruction. No reconstruction of houses (partially or fully damaged) was to be allowed within the buffer zone. Thus, all affected households within the demarcated buffer zone were to be provided with a house built with donor assistance on land allocated by the state while allowing them to retain ownership of the original land. Households were not required to demonstrate ownership of the land to qualify for such assistance.

For those whose damaged houses were deemed to be outside the designated buffer zone, the government agreed to provide grants and loans for households to re-build at the same location. In order to qualify for the entitlement, households were required to prove ownership of the land. The criteria set down in terms of financing such reconstruction included an assessment of damages on a points basis where a house deemed to be more than 40 per cent damaged would qualify for a grant of SLRs.250,000 (US$2,500) in four instalments, based on progress. A grant of SLRs.100,000 (US$1,000) was made available to rebuild a house deemed to be less than 40 per cent damaged, disbursed in two stages.

Predictably, the buffer zone became a politically controversial issue from the very outset. The limits were set in a fairly arbitrary manner, not taking into account topographical and other relevant features of the land that would affect hazard risk. There was also dissatisfaction that the rules were not to be applied across all building units, with tourist enterprises being permitted to rebuild within the designated zone. Many of the tsunamiaffected fishermen, for example, argued the need to retain land close to the sea to sustain their livelihoods.

However, IPS-TS 2006 results showed that about 60 per cent of surveyed households thought that the government’s original buffer zone rule was a “good idea.” Data at the Grama Niladari Division (GND) level agreed with this finding; almost all Grama Niladaris (GNs) (village level government officers) interviewed agreed that the government’s original buffer zone policy was “good.” Paradoxically, they were also happy with the relaxation of the buffer zone in 2006. Although there were delays in providing housing because of the buffer zone rule, most households saw the prospect of better housing because of this policy: IPS-TS 2005 results found that most houses that were destroyed were smaller than the minimum floor area of 500 square feet specified for new houses under the donor-driven programme; in other words, a majority of households would get superior replacement houses, at least in terms of floor area.⁸ Moreover, while all new houses are to be built with permanent housing materials, a large share of destroyed houses had been made of temporary housing material.⁹ Also, households that did not have legal ownership of land were given houses under the donor-driven programme.¹⁰ These factors may have outweighed the costs incurred by many households due to delays in housing progress caused by the 2005 buffer zone rule.

But there was widespread popular opposition on many levels to the buffer zone policy. By end 2005, the government had largely abandoned the idea of enforcing the buffer zone restrictions. In particular, the scarcity of land with which to relocate affected households highlighted the impracticality of enforcing such a zone in the face of the need to ensure permanent housing within a reasonable period of time. A more relaxed buffer zone policy was announced in May 2006 along with a “Revised Tsunami Housing Policy.”¹¹ It was essentially aimed at ensuring that all tsunami-affected people return to their houses or get new houses by the end of 2006. The policy document promised “a house for a house, regardless of land ownership.” It defined two zones (not buffer zones)¹² with four housing options with the cost being shared by the government and donors (see Box 2 [ PDF 79.3KB | 1 page ]).

The revised housing policy pushed the total housing needs to around 110,000 units. The key change was a decision to extend house eligibility to those without legal ownership of land outside the former buffer zone and to offer housing to extended family members living in the affected households.

Secondly, in contrast to the earlier policy, the government and donors were to jointly provide for a minimum of SLRs.500,000 (US$5,000) cash support to a tsunami-affected family to build a house. The significant cost escalation of construction material and labour, already clearly visible by end 2005, undoubtedly forced a revision of the earlier estimates. Under the revised policy, the GOSL was to provide the cash grant, initially reimbursed by different development banks and bilateral donors. ¹³ The grant of SLRs.250,000 (US$2,500) each from the government and donors was to be given in instalments; a first instalment of SLRs.50,000 (US$500) by the government matched equally by the donor and thereafter followed accordingly. The beneficiary was to receive full title to the property in the resettlement area (while retaining legal ownership of property within the re-designated buffer zone).

Finally, under the donor-built reconstruction programme, standard building requirements were set down by the GOSL of a floor area of 500 square feet; the donor was to make available common infrastructure for housing clusters, and the government was to provide services up to the relocation site. The technical specifications were revised to ensure a more equitable basis. This was primarily a response to the initial experience where donors build houses of widely varying quality, with some houses costing only SLRs.400,000 and others being valued at over SLRs.1 million (US$4,000 to over US$10,000), causing friction amongst recipients.¹⁴

The new housing policy requirements are identified under a homeowner-driven programme and a relocation housing programme. Overall, revisions to the housing policy (involving a higher cash grant component and a significant increase in the number of housing units deemed necessary) meant that questions would be raised about the ability to meet the costs of reconstruction within the commitments made by donors. It also created much confusion amongst the beneficiary households. Only about a quarter of the households surveyed in the IPS-TS 2006 were clear about their housing entitlements. Close to 60 per cent indicated that they would like legal advice regarding their rights as a homeowner.

Table 7: Housing Requirements [ PDF 62.9KB | 1 page ]

As of November 2006, 46,531 partially or fully damaged houses had been rehabilitated, recording an 85 per cent completion rate. Nevertheless, a funding gap of US$ 107 million has been identified to complete most of the fully damaged houses (GOSL, 2006). In contrast to the progress in the homeowner-driven rehabilitation, progress in relocating tsunami-affected families has been much slower at only 50 per cent of required units having been completed by November 2006. As the target in this scheme was reduced substantially, the government estimates that sufficient funds are available to successfully complete this programme (GOSL, 2006).

The lack of clarity regarding housing entitlements and distribution was apparent from the survey results. The IPS-TS 2005 and 2006 data give information on the location of households with respect to the 2005 buffer zone, and house and land tenure for 559 households. Of these, 268 were eligible for the donor-driven new housing and 157 were eligible for owner-driven housing reconstruction. A total of 134 households were not eligible for a new house either because they were not homeowners before the tsunami (70 per cent of 134) or because they were outside the 2005 buffer zone, and were homeowners without land tenure (30 per cent of 134).

The survey found considerable inequities in the distribution of new houses. Housing progress was worst for people who were actually eligible for donor-driven new housing. About 65 per cent of such households were still to be found in temporary housing as of mid-2006. At the same time, about 56 per cent of households who were not eligible for a new house had received a house. There appeared to be inconsistencies between official government policy on housing and actual practice. Some households eligible to relocate under the donor-driven housing programme had rebuilt (19 per cent), while others eligible to rebuild under the owner-driven housing programme had relocated (16 per cent). Some households had received houses outside both these programmes, and others who were not eligible to receive a house under either programme had also received houses (see Table 8 [ PDF 64.8KB | 1 page ]).

There were coordination problems across various donors, especially those who provided houses without adhering to government plans. According to local-level government officials, the reluctance of local non-government agencies to share information on aid distribution and their beneficiaries exacerbated the problem of coordination and monitoring.

Table 9 [ PDF 67.2KB | 1 page ] confirms the significant regional variation in housing progress across the country. The uneven progress is, in part, due to the resurgence of conflict in the north and east of the country from end 2005 (Figure 1 [ PDF 67.2KB | 1 page ]). The Eastern Province with the highest requirement of housing is lagging well behind. The Western Province was also behind the Southern Province, most likely due to greater difficulties in obtaining suitable land. The survey results were consistent with national data and showed that housing progress was best in the Southern Province for those outside the 2005 buffer zone. Less than 6 per cent of surveyed households in this region were in temporary housing. Housing progress was worst for those in the Eastern Province—for households both within and outside the 2005 buffer zone. Progress was especially poor for households affected by the conflict.

Key reasons cited for the overall slow progress in housing relocation have included a lack of commitment by nongovernment organizations (NGOs), impact of the conflict, lack of infrastructure in new locations, and poor communications strategies. In the case of donor housing, it has been pointed out that many donors that had large amounts of funds at their disposal and had pledged to build large numbers of housing units failed to meet even 50 per cent of their original targets (GOSL, 2006).

These findings are consistent with the survey results: lack of land and delays in obtaining donor assistance were cited as the main reasons for the slow progress in the donor-driven housing programme. The survey results also suggested that some people found that they were worse-off in terms of quality of housing and access to services (Table 10 [ PDF 85.4KB | 1 page ]). There were claims that people’s lifestyles were not taken into consideration when designing the new houses. For instance, the percentage of households using expensive sources of fuel for cooking such as gas and electricity increased from 10 per cent to 18 per cent, primarily because many of the new houses did not include a kitchen with a chimney to allow use of firewood for cooking.

The relatively smooth progress of the homeowner-driven housing programme vis-à-vis the relocation programme has encouraged the Reconstruction and Development Agency (RADA) to consider converting donor-driven housing projects to owner-driven programmes. Owner-driven housing programmes were reportedly more effective because families got the funds directly into their own hands.¹⁵ Owner-driven housing projects not only progressed faster but also proved to be cheaper than donor-driven projects. The cost of a single donor-assisted housing unit was estimated to range between SLRs.0.4–1.6 million (US$4,000–16,000) even without the additional costs of site preparation, land-filling, drainage, and infrastructure provision (GOSL, 2006).

Considering these factors, RADA urged the international NGOs (INGOs) to transfer their tsunami reconstruction funds to the Treasury so that the government could direct funds to the victims. Additional funding of around US$50 million was needed to shift house construction previously under donor-driven programmes into owner-driven programmes (MFP, 2006). RADA argued that this would be the most practical way of resolving the logistical problems that INGOs faced in constructing houses themselves. Many donors had concerns about allowing the government to choose beneficiaries. To address those concerns and to ensure transparency, it was proposed that donors who opted to convert to the owner-driven programme could be given a list of beneficiaries, so that they could verify their needs and make payments directly to those families. However, with the sole exception of the Red Cross (which had complied with the request to cooperate with the government and converted two-thirds of their pledges (US$25 million)), INGOs showed no enthusiasm to transfer funds to the government.¹⁶

Escalating costs of building materials and skilled construction labour may also have contributed to slow progress in housing. All interviewed key informants reported that the cost of building materials and the wages of carpenters and masons had increased since the tsunami, with more than three-quarters stating that construction costs had increased by “a lot.”

5.1.3 Livelihoods

An estimated 150,000 people lost their main source of income because of the tsunami.¹⁷ About 50 per cent of these were in the fisheries sector, with others distributed among agriculture (4–5 per cent), tourism, and small and micro enterprise-related sectors (GOSL, 2005a). In all surveyed districts, people received some livelihood support. Types of livelihood assistance have included grants in kind (income-generating assets such as fishing boats and equipment), cash grants, loans, training (vocational, business support, etc.), cash-for-work, and temporary employment.

According to official sources, around 75 per cent of the affected families had regained their main source of income by end 2005 (GOSL, 2005a). This is supported by the survey results where 71 per cent of interviewed households claimed they had regained their previous source of livelihood. Only 8 per cent of heads of households had changed their livelihood,¹⁸ while 21 per cent were still unemployed.¹⁹ Thus, within a year of the tsunami, most people were back in their previous occupations. However, this did not mean that people regained their previous level of income. According to our householdlevel survey, on average close to 60 per cent of households considered their real family income—in terms of their ability to cover basic needs such as food and health—to be lower than their pre-tsunami income.

There were regional variations in income recovery patterns. Compared to the Southern Province, a higher proportion of Eastern Province households felt that they were worseoff. ²⁰ According to the survey data—in both the Southern and Eastern provinces—poor distribution of livelihood-related assets, the buffer zone rule, and damages to work places have affected livelihood recovery. In addition to these, inability to participate in employment training (due to security reasons) has also slowed down livelihood recovery in the Eastern Province.

The damage to tourism infrastructure was quite significant and affected tourism-related livelihoods. A total of 53 (out of 242) large hotels and a further 248 small hotels were damaged or destroyed. In terms of hotel rooms, about 3,500 out of a total of 13,000 rooms available in medium to large-scale hotels were out of service in February 2005. Approximately 210 small enterprises that rely on the tourism industry were also destroyed along the coastline. They were mostly enterprises engaged in informal sector activities, and 190 of them were not formally registered with the tourist board. Of the 53 large-scale hotels damaged, 41 were back in operation by end 2005.

Despite the gradual restoration of infrastructure damage to tourist facilities, recovery in livelihoods in the sector was slow. Sri Lanka saw the largest ever number of tourist arrivals in 2004 and although recorded “tourist” arrival numbers did not fall steeply in 2005, many of those counted as tourists were aid workers visiting the country rather than genuine tourists. Tourism earnings, in fact, dropped sharply in 2005 (see Table 3 [ PDF 79.1KB | 1 page ]). This suggests that many potential tourists were discounting Sri Lanka as a desirable travel destination in the aftermath of the tsunami. Recovery in tourism was further constrained by an escalation in ethnic conflict-related incidents from the end of 2005 that deterred the return of tourists in numbers comparable to pre-tsunami levels. Thus, while damage to infrastructure was relevant, it was the negative psychological impact of the tsunami and the subsequent political conflicts that seem to have played a more significant role in hampering recovery in the tourist sector.

By contrast, recovery of fisheries-related livelihoods was swifter despite the fact that this was the most badly affected sector. Those engaged in fishing or related activities made up over one-third of the affected households. In total, over 100,000 people in the fisheries sector were displaced, 16,434 houses were damaged and 13,329 destroyed, and nearly 4,870 fishermen lost their lives with a further 136 reported missing (MFAR, 2006). In terms of equipment, as set out in Table 11 [ PDF 63.3KB | 1 page ] an estimated 75 per cent of the fishing fleet (32,000 boats) had been totally destroyed or severely damaged (around 23 per cent were made un-seaworthy and 54 per cent were destroyed), and one million fishing nets were lost. Apart from these, the basic infrastructure of the fishing industry, such as boatyards, cold rooms, ice plants, and fish markets, were damaged. Damage to fishery harbours and other infrastructure facilities, government services facilities, coast conservation structures, etc., was placed at US$275 million, while repair and replacement costs for the damaged fleet were estimated at US$60 million.

By end 2006, the fisheries harvest had been restored to 70 per cent of the pre-tsunami level with most of the affected fishers returning to their occupation (GOSL, 2006) The relatively rapid recovery of the fisheries sector can be attributed primarily to the relatively rapid progress in replacement of the fishing boats and equipment. The fisheries sector received more immediate assistance than other affected sectors and was able to replace most of its productive assets fairly quickly. A large proportion of destroyed boats had been replaced, and all damaged boats were repaired by end 2005.²¹

However, there have been complaints about the poor quality of repairs. According to results of a survey carried out in December 2005, 8 per cent of the repaired boats were not being used due to dissatisfaction with the repairs.²² Inadequate technical inputs and/or supervision, lack of boat-building knowledge and expertise on the part of NGOs (as well as the fishers), and the absence of proper contracts for after-sales services are blamed for poor-quality repairs, with boat-builders using low-quality material, reducing the thickness, etc., to meet deadlines and profit from the opportunity.

By end 2005, 78 per cent of the destroyed fishing fleet had been replaced (this figure had risen to 95 per cent by mid-2006)²³ with pledges for more than 6,000 boats still outstanding. But 19 per cent of the new boats provided were found not to be seaworthy. Lack of coordination in distribution efforts also led to conflicts and problems over the increasing numbers of boats, the quality of boats, etc. For many NGOs, the provision of small fishing boats was seen as an “attractive” tsunami aid programme that had high visibility but was easy to implement and not too expensive.

The result of this focus on providing small fishing boats, however, may be an oversupply of boats. Such an oversupply is likely to be unhealthy for the fisheries sector in the longer term due to the prospect of over-fishing. The oversupply can be attributed to several factors. There was no reliable data on the fishing fleet prior to the tsunami, and the damage assessments done by a large number of agencies had their weaknesses. Sometimes, people who were not familiar with the community of fishers were responsible for gathering data on previous boat ownership; this permitted many nonfishers to acquire boats. Misidentifications and overlaps occurred as a result of delays in issuing Entitlement Cards by MFAR. Also, the same beneficiary list was sometimes provided to more than one NGO to speed up the recovery process. There was a lack of coordination between the fisheries authorities and the NGOs, poor coordination between NGOs themselves, and competition amongst these agencies which led to errors and miscalculations (MFAR, 2006). Anecdotal evidence from district-level authorities indicated that reluctance to share information on the part of some NGOs made the task of coordinating even more difficult.

Many genuine beneficiaries did not receive new boats because allocations were not properly targeted. Based on extrapolations from the findings of a survey done by the authorities in December 2005, only 6,067 of the 13,190 (46 per cent) boats distributed went to “genuine” beneficiaries. Some small, local agencies had provided boats to “friends and relatives” and had bypassed the fishing authorities.²⁴

Access to credit is a vital element for livelihood recovery. Most of the tsunami-affected businesses were informal, small-scale industries—an estimated 25,000 microenterprises were damaged in the disaster. In addition, 15,000 tsunami survivors were previously involved in self-employed and informal sector activities such as food processing, coir manufacture, carpentry, and tailoring. While over forty organizations were involved in a host of micro-finance programmes established to assist small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), the primary sources of credit were two major government finance schemes.

Prior to the tsunami, the Central Bank of Sri Lanka had been implementing a microfinance scheme (Susahana) through the two state-owned commercial banks. The Susahana loan is provided with no repayment required for the first year and interest at a fixed rate of 6 per cent thereafter. The National Development Trust Fund (NDTF) also offered similar terms through its partner organizations. Following the tsunami, lending escalated and by June 2006, 25,735 loans and grants of SLRs.4,769 million (US$47 million) had been provided to micro-, small-, and medium-sized enterprises (RADA, 2006). The majority of these loans were disbursed in the south and west of the country. The Susahana scheme had reportedly disbursed US$36 million to 8,000 borrowers in the tsunami-affected areas by September 2005. Of these loans, 75 per cent were in the south and west of the country. 60 per cent of the NDTF scheme was also disbursed in the south, with only 40 per cent going to the north and east of the country (GOSL, 2005a).

Unfortunately, the procedures and processes associated with loan approval and disbursement seemed weighted against those worst-affected by the tsunami, with the emphasis placed on ensuring high probability of repayment or loan recovery rather than on meeting the credit needs of those most in need. Despite claims to the contrary, and its stated intention to reach the micro-entrepreneurs, the Susahana lending scheme had been set up in a way that made it very difficult for small tsunami-affected microentrepreneurs to obtain access to the loans. The conditions for access were quite onerous. Guarantors with a permanent income above a certain threshold level were required before a loan was approved. Collateral was required, for which land within the buffer zone was not acceptable. Loans were only to be given to businesses registered before the tsunami, which ruled out many smaller, unregistered businesses. These conditions ruled out, in most cases, people hoping to take up new livelihoods in response to their changed post-tsunami circumstances, from causes such as, for example, the death of the main earner, disability, or new responsibilities for the care of family members.

In fact, it has been acknowledged that the many affected businesses in the buffer zone were hit especially hard because they were unable to access bank credit, and that banks have been reluctant to relax their collateral requirements (GOSL, 2005a). It was also found that very few new clients were reached by the subsidized schemes and a considerable number of small entrepreneurs were left with no access to credit. The survey results confirm these findings: Only a few households (16 per cent of the sample) even applied for credit. Many households did not apply for loans because they were not aware that they were eligible to receive them, or because they felt that their applications would be rejected. Most of those who applied did receive a loan, but they had to provide collateral and sometimes a guarantor in order to obtain it. The average size of the loan was fairly small at less than SLRs.100,000 (US$1,000).

On a positive note, there is evidence to suggest that micro-credit providers improved cooperation and coordination in an attempt to try to maintain the micro credit culture that the post-tsunami supply of micro-credit funds at low interest rates was in danger of undermining.

In the immediate aftermath of the tsunami, a cash grant livelihood assistance programme was announced in January 2005, offering a monthly cash grant of SLRs.5,000 (US$50) to each tsunami-affected household for a period of four months. Over 250,000 households received the first two instalments on time immediately following the introduction of the programme.²⁵ However, concerns were soon expressed in some quarters about the need for proper targeting. The Ministry of Finance Directives then directed local government officials to revise the lists of eligible beneficiaries according to a set of eligibility criteria. There were complaints from both affected families and even some government officials that the criteria were not very clear, or were not in the public domain. This created much confusion and payments halted at a time of acute need. The government circulars announcing the revised criteria were quite broad. This meant that local government officers had considerable room to exercise discretion, resulting in wide variations in interpretation, allegations of corruption, and delays and long back-logs of appeals. Interviews with relevant stakeholders, including both affected families and government officials, suggested that households having access to “regular income” were no longer eligible. It took several months to draw up new lists of those eligible to receive the grant, with the number of recipients eligible for the third payment declining by 25 per cent to 165,000 while the fourth monthly payment was still “on-going” a year after the tsunami (GOSL, 2005a).

In assessing the value and benefits of changes to this programme, it should be noted that even households with a “regular” post-tsunami income had suffered a major loss of wealth in terms of property and possessions, and were cash poor. There was a high probability that they would have to borrow from high interest, informal sector lenders to meet many pressing needs. The decision to take recipients with a regular income off the list after only two monthly payments generated perverse incentives, effectively penalizing not only those who had held on to previous jobs, but perhaps, even more importantly, those who had managed to obtain regular employment after the tsunami. If donor assistance was available for this programme—and it is hard to see why funds were not available if the May 2005 pledges were honoured—these cutbacks seem hard to justify. Moreover, since bank accounts had to be opened for the cash grant transfer, the system was extremely cost effective—many other tsunami livelihood projects had far higher transactions costs with as much as 30 per cent spent on administrative overheads.

This experience with trying to shift the livelihoods grants programme to a targeting scheme only a couple of months after the disaster holds lessons of much wider applicability for post-disaster situations. By all accounts, the initial grants scheme was very effective in reaching most of the affected population. It provided cash at a time of great need, and even helped to link people with little prior engagement to the formal financial sector because they had to set up bank deposit accounts to receive the funds. Unfortunately, the scheme only provided two timely grants before the emphasis shifted to targeting. In theory, it seems obvious that grants should be distributed to those who are “truly needy,” and therefore that grants should be properly targeted. But, in practice, the costs of such narrow targeting must also be taken into account. In the immediate aftermath of a major disaster, particularly in a poor country, the vast majority of affected people are “truly needy.” Markets are dislocated, assets have been destroyed, and records are destroyed or missing. In such circumstances, the cost of trying to exclude a relatively small proportion of people from the small temporary grants scheme through targeting can far exceed any benefits.

In Sri Lanka’s case, grants were delayed for all recipients, including those in dire need; administrative resources were diverted away from the urgent tasks of recovery and reconstruction, which created room for petty officials to engage in corruption and aggravated community divisions and tensions. Any expected benefits from the rush to implement targeting, only two months after tsunami, must be contemplated in the light of the “success” with targeting achieved in Sri Lanka’s long-established national poverty alleviation programme (Samurdhi): the leakage in the Samurdhi programme is estimated to be 40 per cent!

5.1.4 Trauma and Stress

The survey found some evidence of mental and physical health problems related to the tsunami. About 11 per cent of the households knew someone who had committed suicide because of the tsunami. There were reports of more sleeping difficulties, and children experiencing nightmares that were linked to trauma associated with the tsunami. A large number of households—33 per cent of households in the sample—had been offered or given counselling for distress. The percentage of people who received counselling was higher in the Eastern Province, possibly because counselling was already taking place in those areas for sufferers of conflict-related mental health problems.

Twelve per cent of households had family members who had been injured in the tsunami or whose health had deteriorated afterwards: A large proportion of such households (77 per cent) claimed that this affected their income-earning capacity and/or day-to-day activities.

In many cases, the decline in school attendance after the tsunami has not been fully reversed and attendance was reported to be poor even at the end of 2006, with over 25 per cent of children still not attending school (GOSL, 2006). These findings are supported by the survey; nearly 30 per cent of households reported having children who had not yet restarted schooling after the tsunami. The schooling problem existed in areas other than just those affected by conflict, indicating that the problem cannot solely be attributed to the conflict. Thirty-one per cent of the households reported that the performance of children who were attending school had fallen.

5.2 Assistance

There was a strong international public response to the appeal for recovery assistance. Multilateral and bilateral donors and NGOs pledged US$3.4 billion for post-tsunami recovery activities at the first Sri Lanka Development Forum held in May 2005 (MFP, 2005; GOSL, 2006).²⁶ This comprised (concessional) loans amounting to US$798 million and the balance in grants. NGOs pledged a total of US$853 million on a grant basis. The International Monetary Fund pledged US$268 million by way of both emergency relief and a debt moratorium. Bilateral donors extended the debt moratorium providing further relief of US$263 million.

The government reported that around US$2.2 billion (of the total pledges of US$2.8 billion, which excluded debt relief) could be considered as firm commitments from the international community (GOSL, 2005a). In addition, an estimated US$150 million was reportedly received as contributions from domestic sources, without taking into account relief disbursements (for which figures are not available). However, actual committed funds made available to the government appear to have fallen over time to US$ 2 billion from the previous “firmly committed” figure of US$2.2 billion (Table 12 [ PDF 65.1KB | 1 page ]). At the end of the second year of reconstruction, total foreign grant expenditure relative to commitments was only 35 per cent and foreign loan expenditure was 40 per cent. While individual agencies varied in performance, the bilateral and multilateral agencies had spent on average 29 per cent and 32 per cent respectively of committed funds by end 2006. In addition, although the initial needs assessment was placed at US$2.2 billion and a total of US$2.9 billion was secured as committed funds, the funding gap for the reconstruction process as at end 2006 was estimated at US$247 million (Table 13 [ PDF 79.1KB | 1 page ]).

This low rate of expenditure (absorption of available assistance) is not surprising and highlights the constraints that hinder rapid reconstruction. Sri Lanka’s past performance in aid absorption has been poor: The rate of aid utilization in recent years has been only around 20–22 per cent, having improved from around 13–15 per cent towards the end of the 1990s. Many reasons have been cited for such low levels of aid utilization, including political interference with regard to planning, implementation and allocation of funds; staffing and related problems in project management; implementation delays (including infrastructure bottlenecks, complex and costly procurement procedures), and excessive conditionality imposed by donors. Another important factor has been the non-availability of adequate counterpart funds (local funds with appropriation).

Despite the initial euphoria in the aftermath of the tsunami about the volume and adequacy of foreign assistance, it became clear over time that a substantial proportion of reconstruction would have to be domestically financed. In 2006, the government had committed US$1.5 billion in domestic funds (over one-third of total reconstruction costs as initially estimated) for tsunami reconstruction. Thus, at the end of two years, two problems with the funding of the reconstruction effort could be identified: the inability of the country to utilise available foreign assistance in a timely manner, and a widening gap between the actual amount of foreign assistance received and reconstruction requirements.

5.3 Delivery and Coordination of Assistance

Coordination of the relief and reconstruction effort emerged as a key issue from the beginning of the relief effort, and it continued to be a major issue as the reconstruction and recovery phase started. In Sri Lanka, coordination was required across three groups: (a) among the various government agencies, (b) between the numerous donor agencies, and (c) with the LTTE which was in de facto control of a part of the country that was heavily affected by the tsunami. Sri Lanka’s governance structure is such that provincial government agencies have considerable powers, and this meant that coordination was required not only between the various central government agencies, but also between the central government and local government agencies. The involvement of major bilateral and multilateral donor agencies naturally required that their activities be coordinated, both among themselves and with the government. Sri Lanka has long experience working with major donor agencies and several INGOs maintain long established operations in the country. There had been some welcome moves towards donor coordination even prior to the tsunami in the context of conflictrelated donor reconstruction programmes. Thus, the World Bank, ADB, and JBIC had already established a partnership that enabled a needs assessment to be done immediately after the tsunami. However, coordination with donor agencies and NGOs became a vastly more complicated issue due to the numbers and practices of the numerous international NGOs (not counting large numbers of individuals and small groups) who came in after the tsunami. Before long, some 180 NGOs were operating in the tsunami-affected regions of Sri Lanka, making coordination a difficult and complex task. In addition, establishing effective coordination with the LTTE raised difficult and sensitive political and constitutional issues.

As mentioned previously, the government initially set up a Centre for National Operations (CNO) and three task forces to address the coordination challenge. Subsequently, the Task Force for Rebuilding the Nation (TAFREN) became the lead agency charged with the task of overseeing the recovery and reconstruction phase.²⁷ While an overarching authority such as TAFREN was clearly necessary to coordinate post-disaster reconstruction, the structure and composition of TAFREN was such that it was not able to be fully effective in that role. TAFREN was dominated by private sector representatives, and lacked links to line ministries and clear lines of authority. This greatly hampered its ability to efficiently coordinate activities among government agencies. Reconstruction activities had been divided into sectors, such as housing and water and sanitation. This meant that coordination across several agencies, often falling under different ministries, was needed to implement even relatively minor reconstruction activities. For example, three different agencies had to be brought together to ensure that new housing units could get access to water, sanitation, and electricity supplies. Though TAFREN attempted to monitor the line agencies and to play a coordinating role as a “one-stop-shop,” its effectiveness was limited because its role and authority remained unclear.

In November 2005, a decision was taken to amalgamate TAFREN, TAFOR, and the Task Force for Logistics and Law and Order (TAFLOL) into the Reconstruction and Development Authority (RADA). RADA was given wide powers by an Act of Parliament. It was given authority over organizations working on post-tsunami reconstruction and development, and could monitor and control their activities as well as issue “licenses” that would provide legal authority for them to carry out specific activities. In theory, this would enable RADA to exercise efficient coordination. However, potential drawbacks to the vesting of such wide powers in a single, centralised body are that it could overly limit the powers of all other agencies and actors, ignore inputs and feedback from line ministries and local-level agents, reduce flexibility and scope for local initiatives and actions, and make the reconstruction effort too centrally-driven.

Field observations confirmed that lack of adequate coordination resulted in considerable mal-distribution of aid. This was clearly visible, for example, in the way that the distribution of new boats had been conducted, and—as described in a report by the Auditor General—in payment of housing assistance.²⁸ Large payments were made for houses with minor or no damage, NGOs provided houses to families who were not at all affected by the tsunami, and government grants were given to people who had already received houses constructed by NGOs.

The lack of adequate coordination was not only due to weaknesses on the part of the government-established coordinating bodies. A major problem was that some NGOs were simply not willing to be “coordinated,” preferring to act alone pursuing their own agendas. INGOs, as well as some domestic NGOs (particularly those with good foreign links), had access to relatively large amounts of money. With their own funds secure, they saw few incentives to improve coordination. In fact, some were openly hostile to any government action that seemed to place “controls” on their independence.

Further, the presence of large numbers of donors/NGOs at times led to competitive behaviour. In several places deep mistrust developed between local NGOs (who have often been working in the local area for many years) and some INGOs and other foreign agencies who came to distribute tsunami assistance. Local NGOs claim to have been “crowded out” by some of the better financially endowed larger INGOs, who “poached” staff and resources. INGOs varied widely in experience, skills, and operating styles. Many “new” INGOs lacked experience and local knowledge, and in their haste to spend funds and disburse goods and equipment often disregarded local circumstances and community needs. Certainly some INGOs and agencies had valuable expertise in largescale disaster relief (such as provision of transitional shelters and other relief measures), but domestic NGOs (and INGOs that have operated in Sri Lanka for a long period) usually have a much greater appreciation of local conditions and sensitivities. Greater interaction, engagement and coordination between them would have clearly benefited the overall relief and reconstruction effort. New mechanisms have since been put in place to improve coordination of donor activities at regional and local levels through regular meetings and consultations held by regional administrative officers. However, it is too early to judge their effectiveness.

The problems caused by some INGOS should not, however, be seen as typical of all INGOs. In fact, in many cases INGOs played a very positive role. About 44 per cent of the households surveyed felt that INGOs were more effective in delivering aid, while only 11 per cent felt that the local NGOs were more effective.

Coordination with the LTTE proved to be the most difficult and contentious issue. While discussions to establish a mechanism for aid-sharing began soon after the tsunami, a mutually acceptable arrangement for aid-sharing to enable assistance to flow into the LTTE-controlled areas proved elusive. Sections within the government and within the majority community were opposed to any deal that even appeared to provide de facto recognition of the LTTE as the administrative power in regions controlled by it. The LTTE, for its part, was unwilling to accept an arrangement that diluted its administrative and political power in areas under its control. After long, drawn-out negotiations, a MOU setting out an aid-sharing deal between the GOSL and the LTTE, the Post-Tsunami Operation Management Structure (P-TOMS), was signed in June 2005. The P-TOMS agreement envisaged the setting up of a Regional Fund to allow donors to channel tsunami funds directly to the Northern and Eastern Provinces. A multilateral agency (anticipated to be the World Bank) was to be appointed as the custodian.

However, this agreement promptly ran into political opposition. It was challenged in the courts through a fundamental rights petition and the Supreme Court ruled in July 2005 that certain elements were to be put on hold pending clarification,²⁹ though the overall mechanism was not unconstitutional. The situation was aggravated further by the fact that several major donors who had supported the idea of a joint mechanism for aid distribution between the GOSL and the LTTE declined to channel aid directly to the Regional Fund once the MOU was signed, claiming that the LTTE remains a “proscribed terrorist organization” in their countries. After the presidential election in November 2005, with the election of a new President who publicly opposed the agreement, P-TOMS became totally inoperative. The conflict between the GOSL and the LTTE intensified soon after. The renewed violence disrupted not only the lives of the tsunami-affected people in the area, but also led to a sharp increase in internally displaced persons, placing further pressure on aid agencies. There can be little doubt that these problems led to inequitable distribution of aid, with the most severely affected North and East missing out on their fair share.

While these political factors affected the distribution of aid across regions, there has been no strong evidence of widespread corruption or political influence in the distribution of aid within the provinces. Though some petty corruption appears to have affected the distribution of cash grants once targeting was introduced, the overall aid distribution appears to have been reasonably free of overt political interference and corrupt practices. According to the household survey respondents, very few households had paid bribes to government or NGO officials to receive aid, and very few were aware of instances where politicians had interfered directly.

5.4 Cost Escalation

As mentioned, at the time of the May 2005 meeting of the Sri Lanka Development Forum, the aid promises of the international community seemed to more than cover all reconstruction financing needs. Unfortunately, there was a fundamental flaw in the estimates: They were based on costs and prices that prevailed immediately after the tsunami disaster, adjusted for some expected national-level inflation. These estimates have proven to be gross underestimates; clear evidence soon emerged that construction costs were rising rapidly over time. This was, of course, not surprising. The scale of construction that was envisaged was several times larger than that undertaken in a normal period, and naturally implied sharp increases in demand for construction labour and materials.³⁰

Total construction costs for the planned houses for tsunami-affected families had already risen by 30–50 per cent by August 2005, according to data obtained from companies and organizations involved in house building and from field interviews (Table 14 [ PDF 72.7KB | 1 page ]). By September 2006, costs had exceeded initial estimates by 60–80 per cent or more.

Information from field interviews indicated that these increases are driven primarily by higher wages for skilled labourers (such as carpenters, painters, and masons), whose wages have doubled in some locations. This is confirmed by data from the construction industry body, the Institute for Construction Training and Development (ICTA) (Figure 2 [ PDF 65.5KB | 1 page ]).³¹

Prices of particular building materials, such as cement, sand and bricks, saw a sharp increase (Figure 3 [ PDF 68.6KB | 1 page ]). However, it should also be noted that price increases for importable materials were significantly lower than overall construction cost increases (Figure 4 [ PDF 68.6KB | 1 page ]). These data are consistent with survey information: More than three-quarters of the surveyed key informants said that wages of carpenters and masons and prices of building materials had increased “a lot” since the tsunami. This has some important implications: Increased local demand can be met without major price increases when construction materials are importable, but price increases are unavoidable for domestically sourced (“non-tradeable”) materials and labour. The faster the reconstruction programme, the higher the price and cost escalation will be, with less “construction” actually occurring for a given amount of expenditure.

5.5 Broader Economic Impacts

The typical pattern for economies struck by unanticipated natural disasters has been to experience a brief deceleration in growth, followed by a rebound as a result of the stimulus from reconstruction programmes. GDP growth dipped in the first quarter of 2005 but subsequently showed a strong resurgence. Predictably, the fisheries and hotels and restaurants sub-sectors experienced a sharp contraction in output while the construction sub-sector experienced strong growth (Table 15 [ PDF 78.9KB | 1 page ]). The recovery was better than initially anticipated, and was broad-based. There was continued expansion in industry and services, as well as a recovery in agriculture following improved weather conditions, and this good growth performance continued into 2006.

The tsunami reconstruction undoubtedly brightened prospects for Sri Lanka’s short-term economic outlook. The total investment/GDP ratio increased by 1.5 percentage points in 2005, much of it driven by government investment. In fact, the investment/GDP ratio improved to 28.7 per cent in 2006. This was reflected in higher imports of investment goods and construction activities.

Table 16: Post-Tsunami Fiscal Outlook [ PDF 78.9KB | 1 page ]

While the additional tsunami-related expenditure was budgeted to be met by foreign grants, financing needs increased owing to cost escalation and the increase in the numbers of housing units required. Despite added fiscal pressures, there was little effort to curtail spending in other areas, fuelling inflationary pressures from policies unrelated to tsunami reconstruction.³² Fiscal profligacy in the face of higher spending on tsunamirelated rehabilitation aggravated inflationary pressures in the economy. The initial response to rising inflationary pressure was slow, and interest rates remained unchanged allowing credit growth to expand at a rate of over 20 per cent. Broad money growth in 2006 was 17.8 per cent, and inflation rose from 11.6 per cent in 2005 to 13.7 per cent in 2006.

The Sri Lankan electorate has traditionally been very sensitive to inflation. Elections were due in late 2005 and the government was keen to keep inflation in check. This generated political pressures to resist any exchange rate depreciation which could have intensified domestic inflation. There is some evidence to suggest that the tsunamirelated capital inflows were used to prop up the nominal exchange rate in 2005, and this may have been a factor in the slow absorption of aid flows. There was also a significant increase in inward remittances from 6.7 per cent of GDP in 2004 to 7.7 per cent by 2006. While some of the increase may reflect assistance provided to affected family and friends, the increase could also reflect better earnings performance of the majority of migrants employed in the oil rich Middle Eastern countries. Sri Lanka managed to record an overall surplus of US$500 million on the BOP in 2005 (compared with a deficit of US$205 million in 2004) and official reserves showed a sharp improvement.

Figure 5: Nominal and Real Effective Exchange Rate [ PDF 67KB | 1 page ]

The influx of increased foreign capital reversed the sharp devaluation of the rupee vis-àvis the US dollar at end 2004, leading to a nominal appreciation of over 5.5 per cent in the week following the disaster. ³³ The nominal effective exchange rate (NEER) appreciated by 7.7 per cent in 2005 (compared to a depreciation of 11 per cent in 2004).

The higher nominal appreciation in the context of relatively high domestic inflation led to a real effective exchange rate (REER) appreciation of 12.7 per cent (as against a depreciation of 1.1 per cent in 2004). To the extent that this real appreciation was a result of tsunami-related aid flows, it would have had the standard Dutch disease effects on Sri Lanka’s exports.

Aid flows following a disaster are, by their nature, temporary. As the tsunami-related capital inflows eased over time, the government was compelled to seek other forms of external funds to finance the expanding fiscal deficit. In December 2005 Sri Lanka sought a sovereign credit rating as the first step to raising an estimated US$0.5–1 billion in the international bond market. Sri Lanka was assigned a BB- (below investment grade) and a B+ by two rating agencies. But, with the escalation in domestic hostilities the credit outlook was downgraded from stable to negative in April 2006. In 2006, for example, the government raised US$580 million by issuing 2–3-year maturity dollar bonds (Sri Lanka Development Bonds) at rates of 120–140 basis points above the London Inter-Bank Offer Rate (LIBOR) despite the inherent risks involved in recourse to foreign commercial borrowings.

Thus, the overall macroeconomic trends raised serious concerns about the sustainability of the country’s post-tsunami burst of GDP growth once the temporary aid flows ceased.

5.6 Social Cohesion

The spontaneous solidarity that united communities immediately after the tsunami rekindled hopes that the ethnic divisions that had cost the country so dearly in recent years might finally be waning. However, the North and East have since seen an escalation in hostilities between the GOSL and the LTTE, and the country has been plunged back into large-scale conflict. We have already referred to the political problems that derailed the P-TOMS agreement on tsunami aid allocations to the LTTE-controlled areas and undermined the possibilities for a lasting peace. This is in sharp contrast to what happened in Aceh, Indonesia, where the tsunami created conditions for the cessation of a long-running secessionist war.

There is evidence that the post-tsunami relief and reconstruction activities may have contributed to increased social tensions among various groups in affected communities. Many poor households who were unaffected by the tsunami were unhappy because they were ineligible for tsunami aid. This was particularly important in the conflict-affected Eastern Province where large numbers of people have suffered from the two-decadelong conflict and have been internally displaced for long periods of time.

The manner in which tsunami-damaged physical assets were replaced in some instances undermined the social capital of an area by exacerbating existing tensions and rivalries. In some places, tensions developed between fishers and other groups because the latter felt that the fishing industry received greater attention. Similar tensions emerged in the housing sector. The substantial differences between different types of houses built by different organisations, and the different levels of grants given to different groups created perceptions of inequity.³⁴

Download this Discussion Paper [ PDF 312.3KB| 40 pages ].

Comment(s)

There are [0] comment(s) for this entry. Post a comment.